RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
June 20, 2015 at 4:22 pm
(This post was last modified: June 20, 2015 at 4:24 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(June 20, 2015 at 5:08 am)Iroscato Wrote:(June 20, 2015 at 3:31 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I mean, I know that you don't believe in it lol. I don't mean to be preaching, just explaining my views as I get asked about them.
I understand you're not trying to preach, worry not. That wasn't my point, which is more fundamental - do you at least understand our reaction when you say "The cosmos couldn't have come from nothing, so it must have been made by something...that came from nothing."
The Blind Watchmaker argument has been used many times, and each time it requires special pleading for "god", the most complex and unlikely watch of them all.
As far as I know, your reaction is you disagree. I don't see why I should be thought of as anything less than you.
The fact that anything in nature could came from nothing seems like it should be about on par with the fact that there is a supernatural element that does not *need* to come from something. (hence the "supernatural"... it defies the laws of nature)
Of course, the latter seems more logical to me, but as far as we're objectively concerned there is no proof of either and we cannot explain either given what science has provided for us thus far.
They are on equal grounds on that respect, so I don't think I should be considered ignorant or stupid for believing in one over the other.
(June 20, 2015 at 5:13 am)robvalue Wrote: All of science has never so far indicated there ever was "nothing". So to be blunt, to state there once was "nothing" is to make a completely unfounded assumption that goes beyond all scientific knowledge. We simply don't know what happened before a certain point.
But even if there was a "cause" then
cause =/= sentient being =/= god =/= any particular god
[ =/= means is not equivalent to ]
That's 3 non sequiturs in a row following an argument from ignorance/incredulity from an unsupported assertion.
Logic is my only friend.
I agree that there isn't 100% scientific proof for god. I would go further, and say that there is 0%. There isn't even a coherent definition that could be tested for.
But the fact still remains that it escapes our understanding of natural law. Everything in nature comes from something and has some sort of origin. Nothing ever just... was.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh